I've been critical of Affleck as much as the next person. But one has to acknowledge that although he had a bad spell in his career, it seems that he is really taking things seriously now and trying to turn things around. I find I'm warming up to him more and more.

I wouldnt say he's taking everything seriously right now. For the most part yes but he still did Runner Runner. Which im sure he did strictly for the paycheck, otherwise i have no idea what he was thinking.

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

It's sounds silly, but I kinda think that's what happened too. Affleck has reshaped his career, as both a filmmaker AND an actor. But all it took was the Batman announcement and then all of a sudden, everyone was bringing up Daredevil and Gigli again. So when he showed up in a bad movie, whoever decides the Razzie noms probably felt the need to pounce on it. F*** them.

It's sounds silly, but I kinda think that's what happened too. Affleck has reshaped his career, as both a filmmaker AND an actor. But all it took was the Batman announcement and then all of a sudden, everyone was bringing up Daredevil and Gigli again. So when he showed up in a bad movie, whoever decides the Razzie noms probably felt the need to pounce on it. F*** them.

Razzies have never been a serious show, it's generally about who it would be funnier to give the award to than who actually gave the years worst effort.

I don't think Batman has anything to do with it? How is it even related?

I think the important thing to note is he doesn't get Razzie nominated when he himself is the director. Those are actually considered decent performances. Sure he doesn't win awards for them but he doesn't win Razzies either.

A lot of people have pointed out that he actually does his best performances (by his standard) under his own direction. Its only under different directors' direction that he gets Razzie nominated.

And there is no rigging, he's on the long list because people voted for him. And its not like he was praised for Runner Runner or anything, you could dig up as many bad reviews of his performance as good.

It is still inexplicable what Affleck saw in the project that he agreed to do it. I doubt an Oscar winning editor could save such a film.

I don't know what he saw or what was said, but I'm going to trust that with his experiences (good and bad) he saw enough to feel confident to believe he could do it. This, of course, might be the height of hubris, but I'm going to give the guy the benefit of the doubt because he could have said no.

There's only so much that an editor can do if the material handed to them is subpar. I haven't seen Runner Runner, of course, but with an 8% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I don't think I need to bother with this one, since the premise doesn't sound interesting to me. I think I saw a trailer or a clip....

__________________Before SHH, your miserable, insignificant little life was laughable. Now that you've found SHH, have you noticed you've become more popular? Suddenly EVERYONE wants to hang out with you.

Why did he do it? It's not the first time a script that reads good gets turned into a terrible movie by a rookie or bad director. There are cases of the contrary as well. Iron Man and Gladiator didn't even have a script while shooting and actors were ad-libbing the dialogue. Which worked because of who were directing them.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superman4ever

Anything besides the Tumbler, in TDK, and I'll personally castrate myself on live web-cam!

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLBats

Does it disgust anyone that when we were being born, our penises were technically in our mother's vaginas? Isn't that disgusting?